There will be three rounds in this debate.
First round is mainly for acceptance and rules however, I will also state my opinion as a start on the debate
. You just have to say "I accept". Please do not start your arguments until the second round

1. No forfeits
2. No new arguments in the final round, though extra explanations of arguments already explained is allowed; R1 is just for acceptance
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No K's of the topic
8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

I strongly believe that torture is the future for investigation, since it is the most effective way of getting information out of an inmate.

Definitions:
Torture - The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something
Investigation - The action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research
Effective - Successful in producing a desired or intended result
Successful - Accomplishing a desired aim or result

I strongly believe that torture is the future for investigation, since it is the most effective way of getting information out of an inmate.
As Ali Soufan, a FBI special agent experience investigating al-Qaeda operatives, states, "when they are in pain, people will say anything to make it stop". Which shows that they likely to give up information that we maybe did not know we were looking for. In war, information is a weapon and the only effective way to get this information is through torture. Torture is a tool that is used in over 141 countries around the world, because it would be hard to gain the same information, without the use of torture. These countries show us that torture is useful and that they have been able to gain valuable information, that helped prevent terrorism and gain important information that could save millions of lives, which is our main goal in interrogation of terrorists.

Without torture, security is difficult to achieve. Without the torture (or the death penalty) the inmates or terrorist do not have anything to be afraid of, they know that the authorities cannot harm them even if they do not speak, so why should they speak. I believe torture is a good tool to have, both in practice but also for scaring information out of them.

Someone who is willing to blow himself up and kill 100"s of people is not going to talk unless you force them to. The only way you can make them talk, is by torture. Some might say, "They were planning to die anyway, so why would they talk" and the answer is simple, they will not die because of torture, they will have to endure pain and they know what to do to make it stop, and they surely won"t be killed. We do not have time to sit and wait for them to get bored enough to talk.
If we have a so-called ticking time bomb scenario torture would be a powerful tool. Imagine a terrorist group states that they have concealed a nuclear bomb in New York and the authorities have captured the leader of the group, he says that he knows where the bomb is but refuses to reveal the location. Torture is guaranteed to give the information needed to ensure the authorities find and make the bomb safe. In this case, as in many other cases, torture is acceptable in investigation

Yes, torture is inhumane however, it is necessary if we want to stop terrorism. We are supposed to protect innocent lives and if that means torturing a criminal for information, I would say that it is worth it.
ISIS use torture, ISIS beheaded a man on video as a message to the world. Why do we allow them to use torture, but to get information from terrorists we will not use it ourselves. Some say that we have to be on the right side and be the good ones, but this is not a fairy-tale, we are trying to save innocent people, why can"t we do that by inflicting some pain on the people who deserves it.

Definitions:
Torture - The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something
Investigation - The action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research
Effective - Successful in producing a desired or intended result
Successful - Accomplishing a desired aim or result
Security - The state of being free from danger or threat:

Since pro is not only arguing torture is good, but is the best way possible to obtain USEFUL information, they also have the burden of proving why any physically, economically, and mentally possible way is worse. Due to this. to prove them wrong, all I have to prove is that torture is not that efficient. For this, my opinion is not that powerful so I will use the internet and accounts from people how have been through torture to prove my point.
Quickly I will explain why an FBI special agent can not be trusted to explain the usefulness of torture. Simply because they are the people who employ torture, so naturally whether it is efficient or pretty useless. Of course the people who approved the torture are going to say it worked, even if it did not. This is the same light as a murderer after the fact obviously saying they did not do it or it was self defense, you do not just take their word for it there, or here.
"When they are in pain, people will say anything to make it stop." This is in fact true, but does not help your point, and one key word gives this away, anything. Yes, precisely, they will say ANYTHING to get them to stop, this does not mean providing their enemy with useful information. They will say ANYTHING to stop it, but this, as the torture report suggests, is pretty much always not going to be useful information. They could, and do, give any asinine false information to get them to stop, they have a reason to give motivation, but they have absolutely no reason to give correct information. We usually always pretty much did not know we were looking for it, because the information was wrong.
Yes 141 countries of of 196 use torture, that is a fact, but that by no means does mean that torture is the best physically possible means of extracting USEFUL information. They say that there have been useful gains of information from torture, but have hardly a shred of evidence to prove that. Maybe in some very isolated instances the practice has worked, however that does not make it the future for investigations. And what are many of these 141 countries, brutal theocracies, dictatorships, fascist nations. I do not know is the US or any country really should believe that they are employing the best tactics possible. To prove that it has been more useful than any other form of investigations, you must have a very high number of primary or secondary sources to prove this.
You say that the inmates/terrorists have nothing to be afraid of, and therefore will not speak, however what you assume is that if they do speak, they will pretty much always give useful information, which there is no evidence of. No one is saying that authorities have no right to harm them, just not to torture them.
Senator John Mccain went through torture himself, and watched many of him comrades go through it in the Vietnam War, this alone makes him reliable source for what is likely to happen in the practice of torture. "They will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering." This is not my saying, this is a man who has watched many of his friends go through torture and went through him himself, and he is saying that he knows some one being tortured will give any information to stop their suffering, ANY information. You could read that quote for yourself at this link-http://www.theatlantic.com...
Again in the next paragraph you keep assuming that torture will almost always get useful information, which is just not the case. "I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering." Again John Mccain is saying that torture will simply produce much more bad information is good.
A great quote by Mahatma Gandhi helps my point. "You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind." What does this show? As you said Islamic terrorists in groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda are willing to give their lives for their cause, what do you really believe are the odds of them giving away their friends and comrades. Highly unlikely. Maybe they will give information but it will pretty much always be fake.
The example you state does not work simply because, THAT NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENS, situations like that happen in movies and TV but that just does not take place in objective reality. Simply because is a terrorist group is planning a terror attack we know from experience that they do not reveal that information, especially when they know that their enemy has their members. Torture is far from guaranteed to give the information, it is highly, highly unlikely, no more likely than pretty much every other method. The reason it is not acceptable is because this situation does not happen.
As for that specific example, if they found out where the leader is, how do they not know where the bomb is, where did they obtain that information in the first place? Again torture is almost never effective, we know this from firsthand accounts of people that have been tortured.
Another problem with torture, how do we know that we have the right people? Due to your mention of the FBI I believe you live in the US, so let me point something out. In the torture report that was released we know that there is no piece of evidence to suggest the torture we did in facilities such as Guantanamo Bay produced any useful information that we do not already know. My last argument is that simply the people we get are sometimes not the right people. The single way we know we got the right people is by our soldiers seizing them in battle. Problem is this pretty much never happens. Terrorists will be willing to give their lives for their cause and will give their life for it willingly. This goes for any terrorists, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist whatever.
Let me give you an example. Under the Bush administration a deal was made where we gave money to some countries like Afghanistan and in return they were supposed to give us affiliates of terrorist groups, while in reality, they gave us anti government protesters who we tortured for absolutely no reason and got no information and wasted time. The problem with torture in pretty much every country who does it is that there is no due process or vetting, which means the already very low odds of getting useful information is decreased even more.

If any country decided to torture there are some things called the UN, geneva conventions, and international law we will have to pull out of in order to perform this practice which gives us very little useful information. As the United NAtions made a ruling outlawing torture in 1974.
Governments that block the aspirations of their people, that steal or are corrupt, that oppress and torture or that deny freedom of expression and human rights should bear in mind that they will find it increasingly hard to escape the judgement of their own people, or where warranted, the reach of international law.
This quote summarizes a lot- "Governments that block the aspirations of their people, that steal or are corrupt, that oppress and torture or that deny freedom of expression and human rights should bear in mind that they will find it increasingly hard to escape the judgement of their own people, or where warranted, the reach of international law."

Even more torture than countries already have, will not be escaping international law no matter how powerful.

Con mentions that pro lack examples of efficiency of torture. Therefore I will bring forward a statement, that the ACLU"s (American Civil Liberties Union) Jameel Jaffer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and director of the ACLU's Center for Democracy, stated: "When they use rendition and torture as a threat, it"s undeniable that they benefit, in some sense, from the fact that people know that intelligence agents are willing to act unlawfully. They benefit from the fact that people understand the threat and believe it to be credible"

Another example shown is Nazih Hassan, who is president of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor, Michigan states that his members fear doing or saying anything that could get their name on the lists. One member testified that he has "stopped speaking out political and social issues" because he do not want to draw attention to himself, which clearly shows that torture is effective in just the thought of going through it yourself.
This is tortures true purpose, to terrorize. Not only the people in Guant"n"m"s cages and Syria"s isolation cells but also the broader community that hears about these abuses. Torture is a tool designed to break inmates will to resist- every individual prisoner"s will.
Lynndie England, who is the fall girl for Abu Ghraib, was asked during her failed trial why she and her colleagues had forced naked prisoners into a human pyramid. She replied with "As a way to control them" and it worked.

Yet another example is shown in a film about FLN (National Liberation Front). The film opens with the image of a beaten Algerian beggar sitting in a tiled room. Fresh from an "enhanced interrogation," as some may call it. He has revealed the location of the remaining leader of the FLN. The French Colonel asks the man to take him there. When the beggar's will wavers for a split moment, the Colonel asks him simply, "Do you want the torture to continue?" The man obeys and leads them to the rebel leader.
The point shown here is very simple. Torture will force men to do things they do not want to do and reveal things that they do not want to share.

I stated before that "Someone who is willing to blow himself up and kill 100"s of people is not going to talk unless you force them to. The only way you can make them talk, is by torture." It is believed that some terrorist kill themselves because of two different reasons, their belief and their fear of being physically and mentally tortured, which leads to them killing themselves to avoid such situations.

Other proponents argue that saving lives has a higher value than avoiding infliction of pain, especially where the lives are innocent and where the pain would be inflicted on guilty terrorists only.
Jeremy Bentham states as support of this statement "if a gang of tortures who, if they remained at liberty, would torture 100 innocent victims, would it be accepted to torture one guilty member of the gang "to make known the place" where the other tortures could be found, and save these 100 innocent lives. Yes it can be accepted based on the greatest good for the greatest number"

My last example will be president Bill Clinton who states that "Every one of us can imagine the following scenario. We get lucky and we get the number three guy in Al Qaeda, and we knew there"s a big bomb going off in America in three days and this guy knows where it is. Don"t we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him?"

But as a factual matter, I think every president would at least consider the option of torture if confronted with an actual ticking bomb.

Okay first I will point some things out again. You still have failed to give a reason why torture is better than any other physically and mentally possible of extracting information, by cross examining them. So even in a made up scenario where torture worked almost every time (even though it almost never works) you would still have failed to prove it is the best, as you have failed to do especially by not proving that it works even a majority of the time.
Okay all that quote shows is that the ACLU believes that using torture as a THREAT, its undeniable that they benefit. Whoa hold on, in your own definition you said that threats do not even qualify as torture. here is the definition of torture you posted in your argument "The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something." So by your own logic, the kind of "torture" the ACLU describes is threats, but in your own definition that does not even qualify as torture. So for your argument that does 100% nothing other than show you do not even understand your own claims. But lets even ignore that (just me and you not the voters) and it still does not help your case, they say that they benefit from the fact that people understand the threat and believe it to be credible, again by your definition of torture that does not even count as torture, however even if it did, that has no specific examples of torture being used to extract direct, correct, and useful information. So yes, I still see you provided no specific examples of it working, lets move on.
Okay the example you stated "one member testified that he stopped speaking out political and social issues because he does not want to draw attention to himself, which clearly shows that torture is effective in just the thought of going through it yourself." Wow okay lets have a look, okay again by your own definition, fear of torture does not count as torture okay, so again that example already has no validity to your case. But again this does not show an example of torture extracting any beneficial information from any person at all. All this shows is people do not like pain, how does that provide any examples? People also do not like dying, or unhappiness, or anger, or a lot of things. But in any case if this shows anything, it does not show that torture is effective it shows that FEAR is effective, not at extracting information but simply scaring people away from things they do not like, and by your definition fear tactics are not torture. And if this even proves anything, it shows that we do not need torture we just need to talk about torture to scare people out of the public eye, which apparently only worked with one person. Again this is useless to your claim, and you provided no examples of torture extracting beneficial info. Okay again you say "break their will" again we all know this, but what you fail to recognize and provide a good argument against is that I had actual quotes from torture victims including John Mccain who was a POW for 5 and a half years is that torture extracts BAD information, not useful info, again you have provided no examples yet, lets move on.
Okay and Abu Ghraib, "was asked during her failed trial why she and her colleagues had forced naked prisoners into a human pyramid. She replied with "as a way to control them" and it worked. Again by your own logic this does not count as torture, but even if it did, how does this show that they extracted correct information useful to their cause, thing is it does not. Again, even if they did, this would actually prove that fear tactics and some sort of "mind control" work better than torture, working against your own case.
Okay on the movie. I assume you are talking about the Battle of Algiers movie from 1966, but since you never specify a title I cannot perform a true fact check. But assuming you are, since the description fits it, that movie is not a documentary. So the scene you are talking about was done by actors, its a movie, and as I stated it only works in movies, actors are not exactly the most credible source for information, especially when its a scene from a war/drama movie. SO yeah that is not a correct example of it, okay moving forward, still 0 real examples of it extracting correct information. Wait I just checked the synopsis and the scene you described is the exact opening of the movie, ha, listen an example from a scripted movie does not really work for this.
As for your next paragraph, again we already went through this yes maybe they will talk, but I gave you quotes from former POW's that shows that you get WAY more bad information than good. Maybe in some very very isolated situations it works, but that could be said for pretty much any method used by the government ever. This includes fear tactics, which by your definition does not does not count as torture because it is not "extreme pain" or physical harm.
Yes it can be accepted, but the debate is about is it the most physically and mentally possible method ever, and that is a moral argument you present there which does not help you.
Okay and the Bill Clinton scenario, yeah I could imagine it, but do you-have any examples of anything like ever happening? No, not surprising. In any case, yeah I can imagine that, but that does not mean it ever happens. In any case, even if it did happen (which it has not) that is an extreme isolated instance (so much it has never happened) that torture would hardly ever be effective except in that instance. (Since it has never happened there is no evidence torture would work them other than assumption.)
Okay the president would consider it, and again that does not mean torture is the best possible method of investigation even if it pretty much always worked (it pretty much never works as we have went every and I provided examples which pro never bothered to try and refute). Again you have simply failed to provide any real instances of torture extracting real information and therefore there is no evidence that it is the best method of investigation or interrogation by any stretch moral issues aside. For this reason, I hope you vote con.